|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:17 am Post subject: US soldier loses 9/11 film claim |
 |
|
I love Mike Moore and think that he is a rebel that the US (and the world) needs in these trying times. This just further proves that most of what the right-wing nutters throw at him is pure bollocks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6202815.stm
| Quote: |
A US judge has thrown out a claim by an Iraq war veteran who alleged a TV clip of him was used without his consent in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Sgt Peter Damon, 34, who lost both arms in Iraq, claimed Moore used an interview he did with NBC's Nightly News without asking permission.
Sgt Damon said use of the clip in Moore's documentary made him appear anti-war and against President Bush.
US District Judge Douglas Woodlock said the segment did not defame Sgt Damon. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: Re: US soldier loses 9/11 film claim |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
I love Mike Moore and think that he is a rebel that the US (and the world) needs in these trying times. This just further proves that most of what the right-wing nutters throw at him is pure bollocks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6202815.stm
| Quote: |
A US judge has thrown out a claim by an Iraq war veteran who alleged a TV clip of him was used without his consent in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Sgt Peter Damon, 34, who lost both arms in Iraq, claimed Moore used an interview he did with NBC's Nightly News without asking permission.
Sgt Damon said use of the clip in Moore's documentary made him appear anti-war and against President Bush.
US District Judge Douglas Woodlock said the segment did not defame Sgt Damon. |
|
Michael Moore is a liar. Its one thing to be a dissident, but to lie and use video editing to make it look like there is dissent where there is none is awful.
This soldier isn't the only complainant of that. The crators of South Park were also victimized in such a way and such is why they have Mooore dying in Team America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You see what you just said is just not true, prove one lie he has ever said, unlike Bush, Moore has never, at least to my knowledge lied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| You see what you just said is just not true, prove one lie he has ever said, unlike Bush, Moore has never, at least to my knowledge lied. |
Umm yes he has, like I just said in his film he used video editing etc to make it appear some people had certain views. Like that soldier who denies being Anti Bush, the same with the creators of South Park and many others who were in that film. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its called the "Kuleshov Effect" and its how filmmaking is done. And the judge in the above article said that the soldier's claim has no merit. No film is unbiased that's just the way she goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you approve of Micchael Moore's form of propaganda?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| ...most of what the right-wing nutters throw at him is pure bollocks. |
Has it occurred to you that Moore is the left-wing equivalent of your right-wing nutters? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| ...most of what the right-wing nutters throw at him is pure bollocks. |
Has it occurred to you that Moore is the left-wing equivalent of your right-wing nutters? |
So what?
Moore has citations and references and seems pretty scholarly to me.
His movies are great too.
And yes - can someone please justify the claim that Moore is a liar, or inaccurate? Preferably without flaming? I genuinely don't know and it's essential we understand how Moore lies if we are to continue to view him as credible. The justification for him being a liar earlier in the thread seemed weak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Michael Moore's movies are very entertaining, but anyone who tkes them as factual documentaries is a complete idiot *cough* OH *cough* or has a serious agenda against the U.S. government.
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| So what...? Moore has citations and references and seems pretty scholarly to me. |
Your post calls for ridicule. And you cannot respond with "so what?" -- which reads antagonistically -- and then ask not to be flamed.
Your politics coincide with Moore's and you like his films. That is your prerogative and no one can fault you for that. Good for you. I actually like Canadian Bacon.
But, like so many others on the far left, you are supporting someone who bends facts, mishandles the evidence, and indeed forces interpretations that go beyond the evidence. His tone is hysterical and allegation-driven and not professional or dispassionate. He does not appeal to reason but rather emotion. And his favorite tactic is to incite and then fan the flames of the far left's righteous outrage.
And each and every time I have seen critics challenge any of his assertions he has always backed down and protested that he is neither a historian nor a bona fide documentarian but rather just a humble satirist. One of Hollywood's numerous luxeries with respect to their usual liberties with their "historical" dramas.
And each and every time I have mentioned Moore's allegations and "analyses" in the leftist-dominated academe, colleagues and professors usually sheepishly respond "hey, we are not publishing that in our conferences and journals."
Right. Edward W. Said gets to indict anyone and everyone who has thought about, written about, or even sung about the Middle East since Napoleon, but the left gets to applaud Moore and even cite his "scholarly citations and references" until actually called on them. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it, too.
Even leftist professors with area expertise back down from their champions' "analyses" on their own initiative when presented with some of their more outrageously negligent claims. I was just talking with a full professor on why he remains somewhat skeptical of Noam Chomsky: he showed me a passage where Chomsky, in his haste to indict West and especially the United States for all that has gone wrong in the world, asserts that East Asia actually welcomed Imperial Japan as liberators from White colonial rule, which represents all Tokyo really wanted to to there...
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:53 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lies are lies but different points of view are not. I'd also like to see some demonstration that Moore chronically lies in his films. I've never seen any of his films or read any of his books, but I tend to think that if Bill O'Reilly calls someone a liar, then that person is most likely a near-saint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Lies are lies but different points of view are not. I'd also like to see some demonstration that Moore chronically lies in his films. I've never seen any of his films or read any of his books, but I tend to think that if Bill O'Reilly calls someone a liar, then that person is most likely a near-saint. |
I would actually say that Bill O'Reilly is the equivalent of Michael Moore on the other end of the political spectrum. They're both FOS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| So what...? Moore has citations and references and seems pretty scholarly to me. |
Your post calls for ridicule. And you cannot respond with "so what?" -- which reads antagonistically -- and then ask not to be flamed.
Your politics coincide with Moore's and you like his films. That is your prerogative and no one can fault you for that. Good for you. I actually like Canadian Bacon.
But, like so many others on the far left, you are supporting someone who bends facts, mishandles the evidence, and indeed forces interpretations that go beyond the evidence. His tone is hysterical and allegation-driven and not professional or dispassionate. He does not appeal to reason but rather emotion; he incites the far left's righteous outrage.
And each and every time I have seen critics challenge any of his assertions he has always backed down and protested that he is neither a historian or a bona fide documentarian but rather just a humble satirist.
And each and every time I have mentioned Moore's allegations and "analyses" in the leftist-dominated academe, colleagues and professors usually sheepishly respond "hey, we are not publishing that in our conferences and journals."
Right. Edward W. Said gets to indict anyone and everyone who has thought about, written about, or even sung about the Middle East since Napoleon, but the left gets to applaud Moore and even cite his "scholarly citations and references" until actually called on them. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it, too. |
Dude, I'm not saying this to defend Moore. I'm not Moore, so I couldn't give a *beep* if he ends up completely, totally discredited. If that eventuality occurs, I shall hold up my hands and completely surrender. However, I'm going to ask you to defend the above with further information, not merely offer a more longwinded restatement of your original assertion.....
*But, like so many others on the far left, you are supporting someone who bends facts, mishandles the evidence, and indeed forces interpretations that go beyond the evidence
Where please?
*His tone is hysterical and allegation-driven and not professional or dispassionate
How does this show Moore's theses are wrong?
*He does not appeal to reason but rather emotion; he incites the far left's righteous outrage.
And it simply follows from this that his theses are wrong?
I want to see factual information Moore completely screws up, preferably something significant and not a tiny detail.
*And each and every time I have seen critics challenge any of his assertions he has always backed down and protested that he is neither a historian or a bona fide documentarian but rather just a humble satirist
Please provide evidence. Again - I'm not being an arse. I need to see this occur for myself and cannot take your word for it that this has occurred. If I'm satisfied with the further evidence you provide, I will completely back down and no longer support Moore.
*And each and every time I have mentioned Moore's allegations and "analyses" in the leftist-dominated academe, colleagues and professors usually sheepishly respond "hey, we are not publishing that in our conferences and journals."
I need to know where.
*Right. Edward W. Said gets to indict anyone and everyone who has thought about, written about, or even sung about the Middle East since Napoleon, but the left gets to applaud Moore and even cite his "scholarly citations and references" until actually called on them.
Please respond to the bold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
I think Michael Moore's movies are very entertaining, but anyone who tkes them as factual documentaries is a complete idiot *cough* OH *cough* or has a serious agenda against the U.S. government.
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false. |
Oh good Lord.
*We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies.
Yup, full of lies, we know. But where please?
*The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number).
And what conclusion does the author feel I should draw from this observation about the free toll number? Assuming this indeed false, okay, and?
*The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false
The bold lacks justification and doesn't even follow from the premises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I've never seen any of his films or read any of his books... |
...but you are going to jump into this discussion defending the man anyway, just because you don't like Bill O'Riley? Come on.
I, too, strongly disagree with O'Riley and others -- Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh immediately come to mind -- but I have seen enough of Moore's "work" to know b.s. when I see it.
And calling him "scholarly" represents the height of absurdity. He failed to even graduate college.
You can take this or leave it, Ya-ta. But at least look at Moore and his assertions before defending his methods and applauding his politics. Or at least listen to what some of those who claim he has maligned them are saying...
| Quote: |
A few years ago Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"
Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me -- I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.
The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels... |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/main619287.shtml
And Spinoza: you are either a partisan or so far out of the loop over there in South Korea that you truly lack familiarity with what I reviewed for you in my post. So sorry, I am not going to come here and reinvent the wheel with respect to the credibility issues that surround Michael Moore.
And are you not even concerned a little about the creative editing/conscious slanting that this thread reviews in its OP -- even if said creative editing/conscious slanting did not techincally defame the complainant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
